We Christians like controversy, it seems. Sure, we give lip service to the idea of unity and being one body on a common mission, but don’t let that fool you – we like an argument as much as the next person.
Which is why I am unsurprised there is another controversy floating around on the blogosphere – apparently the publicity Rob Bell’s latest book, Love Wins has just begun, and some sections of the evangelical church are not happy with it. The book, dealing with various aspects of the afterlife and heaven and hell, has been accused by some of the hardcore neo-Reformed types, most notably by Justin Taylor over at the Gospel Coalition, of being heretical in its advocating of Universalism and making “a departure from Biblical Christianity”. John Piper then weighed in with a tweet saying “Farewell Rob Bell”. Cue twitter going mad. Plus ca change!
Steve Chalke
It’s all rather similar to the controversy that erupted over here in the UK a few years back over a book written by Steve Chalke that allegedly denied penal substitution. Cue attacks by UCCF (our neo-Reformed hardcore Christian Union movement) and, again, John Piper, accusing Steve Chalke of breaking from Biblical teaching. There was then a flurry of books coming out that attempted to show that Penal Substitution was the only, or at least the primary, understanding of the cross.
Whether it did or it didn’t deny PSA is up for debate – personally, I think he probably would want to move away from a penal understanding of the Cross into something a bit more sacrificial. Either way, however, the book remained firmly within Orthodox Christianity (if we describe Orthodox Christianity as being slightly bigger than John Piper’s version!) and helpful to a lot of people.
All of which goes to make these controversies look rather silly.
They look especially silly, however, when people are calling others heretical having not even read the book they are coming out against. It breaks rule 101 of theology – always engage with something before you rebut it, especially if you are going to use such strong language to rebut it.
What might Rob Bell write?
Like most people, I haven’t read the book. But, if I were to nail my colours to the mast based on what I know of his theology, I think he would argue something along the lines of C. S. Lewis or N. T. Wright.
And I think it would probably go something like this: all human beings are God’s creatures designed to image the Creator God and do his will. God gives us our identity and our image because breathed breath into our nostrils. We were then given the task of serving God and loving our fellow human being here on earth. He would then probably note that for many hundreds of millions – that’s hundreds of millions – of people, hell already exists here on earth because of war, disease, famine and unjust economic systems. So before we get upset about the afterlife, we should remember the commission and calling we have here in our first life.
He would then probably move to the afterlife and talk about the renewed heavens and renewed earth, where evil is eradicated form the earth (picking up on Old Testament images of judgement being a good thing for all humanity) and God comes to dwell with man in a world where pain and suffering and tears have been removed for ever.
He would then probably keep free will in place by saying that there is always the option, even at this late stage, for someone to finally reject the living God in whose likeness they are made. However, in rejecting the Creator in whose image they are made, they would begin to lose that same image because they are rejecting the life-sustaining breath.
What this then means, who can know – it may be something like C. S. Lewis’ “doors of hell closed from the inside”, it may be something more like John Stott’s idea of people ceasing to exist. But Bell would probably go down this line of having the final option to reject Christ as Lord of all rather than making it hinge upon the acceptance of Christ (remember that Bell is a fan of N.T. Wright’s idea of the pistos Christou, that salvation hinges primarily upon the faithfulness of Christ rather than on the faith of the individual believer).
In the meantime, I think he would focus on the Church’s role of bringing heaven to earth in foretastes of the Kingdom and our mission of loving God and loving our neighbour through incarnational living.
Conclusion
Like I said, I haven’t read the book, and this is just a summary of what it could be based upon his big influences. The account is also probably tinged with my assumptions. There are problems with this and questions we would want to ask. However, if it were to come out as this, he would be well within orthodox Christian teaching (seriously, if people of a neo-Reformed persuasion want something to get excited about, ask me for MY views on universalism – I guarantee they would make Rob Bell’s look mundane). Maybe not a neo-Reformed stream, but well within Christianity and probably well within Evangelical thought, too – see Wright and Keller, for example.
Which just goes to show that God is bigger than our individual theologies. Therefore, I suggest the following pattern of behaviour upon finding we disagree with something: read the book (duh!), listen sympathetically to where people are coming from, have a cup of tea – then begin to respond, bearing in mind represent the book fairly and substantiate criticisms fairly (I’m reminded of Chris Tilling’s excellent post about a review of Douglas Campbell’s The deliverance of God).
I’m a theology student. I care enough about theology to think that differences do sometimes matter and should be discussed. Yet at the same time, I have much to learn from all sections of God’s church, from the Catholics to the Orthodox to, yes, even the evangelical Protestants. Let’s at least listen before we reply.
A final thought – the pastor at my church up here likes to repeat that if we have never been tempted towards Universalism, we have never fully understood the grace of God.
Update: there is a follow-up to this post in the form of an open letter to evangelicals. Please feel free to check that out.
I have opted to keep out of the controversy, and focus on the mission with my thoughts on the subject
http://mikepcshaw.blogspot.com/2011/02/farwell-rob-bell.html
Good post, well balanced and thoughtful. Thank you.
judgment- weird word…it has not the letter e of judge
I opted to understand the controversy by writing my dissertation on Universalism, so that I could focus more clearly on the mission of the church!
Universalism’s philosophical premise is centuries old and based on the apparent obnoxiousness of an eternal hell; and a theological premise that some biblical texts presuppose the possibility of post-mortem conversion, and that then, everyone who didn’t confess Christ as Lord whilst alive, will eventually do so at some point in eternity, and so be saved, hence Love Wins (which implies anything less means Love Loses – and no one wants that do they)? This is classic “us-them” rhetoric!
The impact this doctrine has on so many other areas of theology makes understanding Universalism pretty important for good theology and therefore good mission, which is why those who may not engage in the debate can often be guilty of caricaturing the opposing view whilst bolstering their own (so-called) effectiveness in being much more practical, i.e. “doing” mission!
Maybe you should read Bell’s book and write a follow-up post David, and show us how you can make Rob Bell appear mundane – now that I would pay for!